Cell Therapy CDMOs — Ranked by Signal Score · 2026
80
CDMOs tracked
64
Fully scored
18
With FDA records
57
FDA inspections
138
EMA/MHRA GMP certs
6
Warning letters
On CDMO Signal's composite Signal Score, Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg), City of Hope (T Cell Manufacturing), and Merck KGaA / MilliporeSigma (CDMO) lead the cell therapy CDMO rankings. Signal Score is a 0–100 composite of four weighted pillars — Quality Compliance (35%), Operations (25%), Financial Stability (20%), and Capacity Intelligence (20%) — built from FDA inspection history, EMA/MHRA GMP certificates, ClinicalTrials.gov sponsor footprint, and monitored capacity signals. Cell therapy CDMO selection turns on autologous vs allogeneic experience, closed-system processing maturity, chain-of-identity infrastructure, and the vein-to-vein timeline the site has actually delivered against. Rankings are recomputed daily. Full methodology at cdmosignal.com/methodology.
Cell therapy CDMOs manufacture living products — CAR-T, TCR, NK, and stem-cell therapies — where the process is the product. Autologous programs add patient-scheduling and chain-of-identity demands that allogeneic, batch-based programs avoid.
The right cell therapy CDMO depends on autologous vs allogeneic experience, vector sourcing, closed-system processing, and cold-chain logistics. The rankings below score each CDMO on FDA inspections, GMP certification, clinical activity, and capacity.
FDA inspection outcomes across these CDMOs: 30 NAI (no action), 26 VAI (voluntary action), 1 OAI (official action). Leading inspection & GMP sites: United States (46), Germany (30), UNITED KINGDOM (22), Denmark (18), Ireland (17).
Last updated 2026-08-22. Sourced from FDA, EMA EudraGMDP, MHRA GMDP, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
| # | CDMO | Signal Score | Quality | FDA · GMP | Capacity | Programs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
BMS
Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg)
Bothell, WA · Warren, NJ
|
90.8 | 97.0 | 6 insp · 2 GMP | — | 583 programs |
| 2 |
COH
City of Hope (T Cell Manufacturing)
Duarte, CA
|
83.8 | 96.8 | 3 insp · 0 GMP | — | 211 programs |
| 3 |
MK
Merck KGaA / MilliporeSigma (CDMO)
Darmstadt, DE · St. Louis, MO
|
81.8 | 98.6 | 2 insp · 2 GMP | — | 22 programs |
| 4 |
AG
AGC Biologics
Longmont, CO · Milan, IT · Copenhagen, DK · Chiba, JP
|
80.6 | 99.9 | 2 insp · 23 GMP | Available | 2 programs |
| 5 |
TK
Takeda
Boston, MA · Zurich, CH
|
80.5 | 99.3 | 4 insp · 18 GMP | — | 100 programs |
| 6 |
BY
Bayer (Cell Therapy Mfg)
Berkeley, CA
|
79.2 | 86.9 | 8 insp · 17 GMP | — | 126 programs |
| 7 |
CS
Cedars-Sinai Biomanufacturing
Los Angeles, CA
|
78.9 | 100.0 | 1 insp · 0 GMP | — | 34 programs |
| 8 |
Lonza
Basel, Switzerland
|
78.2 | 95.1 | 2 insp · 8 GMP | — | 1 programs |
| 9 |
MB
Miltenyi Biotec
Bergisch Gladbach, Germany
|
74.6 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 2 GMP | — | 8 programs |
| 10 |
NR
National Resilience
San Diego, CA · Boston, MA · RTP, NC · Philadelphia, PA
|
73.4 | 97.7 | 1 insp · 0 GMP | Available | 9 programs |
| 11 |
CR
Charles River Laboratories
Newbury Park, CA · Memphis, TN · Keele, UK · Rockville, MD
|
91.7 | 98.7 | 8 insp · 11 GMP | Limited | 0 programs |
| 12 |
WB2
WuXi Biologics
Shanghai, CN · Wuxi, CN
|
83.7 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 4 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 13 |
MN
Minaris Advanced Therapies
Philadelphia, PA · Allendale, NJ · Munich, DE · Yokohama, JP
|
83.5 | 100.0 | 1 insp · 6 GMP | Limited | 0 programs |
| 14 |
SC
SCTbio
Prague, Czech Republic
|
81.6 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 5 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 15 |
EF
Eurofins CDMO
Planegg, DE · San Diego, CA
|
81.6 | 100.0 | 5 insp · 0 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 16 |
DH
Danaher (CGT Portfolio)
Washington, DC
|
81.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 17 |
CF
CELLforCURE (SEQENS)
Les Ulis, FR
|
80.3 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 4 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 18 |
RC
RoslinCT
Edinburgh, UK · Hopkinton, MA
|
80.2 | 98.8 | 1 insp · 1 GMP | Available | 0 programs |
| 19 |
SG
Syngene International
Bengaluru, India
|
79.7 | 95.9 | 2 insp · 0 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 20 |
OB
OmniaBio
Hamilton, ON
|
79.5 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 2 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 21 |
GS
GenScript ProBio
Piscataway, NJ · Nanjing, CN
|
79.5 | 100.0 | — | Constrained | 0 programs |
| 22 |
SK
SK pharmteco
Dublin, Ireland. Rancho Cordova, CA. King of Prussia, PA. Houston, TX. Korea. France.
|
79.5 | 100.0 | — | Available | 0 programs |
| 23 |
XP
eXmoor Pharma
Bristol, United Kingdom
|
78.7 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 1 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 24 |
BB
bluebird bio Manufacturing
Durham, NC
|
78.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 25 |
NG
NecstGen
Leiden, NL
|
78.1 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 1 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 26 |
OR
Ori Biotech
London, UK
|
78.1 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 1 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 27 |
CC
CCRM
Toronto, ON, Canada
|
78.1 | 100.0 | 5 insp · 0 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 28 |
CE
Celonic
Basel, Switzerland
|
78.1 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 1 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 29 |
GP
Green Phoenix Labs
San Diego, CA
|
78.1 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 1 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 30 |
BC
Biocon Biologics
Bangalore, India
|
77.1 | 96.1 | 4 insp · 2 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 31 |
SY
Symbiosis Pharmaceutical Services
Stirling, United Kingdom
|
76.8 | 100.0 | 1 insp · 9 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 32 |
IP
Intas Pharmaceuticals
Ahmedabad, India
|
76.8 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 5 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 33 |
CY
Cell-Easy
Toulouse, FR
|
76.8 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 2 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 34 |
CN
Cellin Technologies
Luxembourg, LU
|
76.8 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 1 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 35 |
HH
HiTech Health
London, United Kingdom
|
76.8 | 100.0 | 0 insp · 9 GMP | — | 0 programs |
| 36 |
FH
Fred Hutch Cell Therapy Lab
Seattle, WA
|
76.4 | — | — | — | 453 programs |
| 37 |
CG
Cytiva (Mfg Services)
Marlborough, MA · Uppsala, SE
|
74.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 38 |
LZ
Lonza Biologics
Houston, TX · Portsmouth, NH · Geleen, NL · Basel, CH
|
72.8 | 95.1 | 1 insp · 0 GMP | Limited | 0 programs |
| 39 |
IO
Iovance Biotherapeutics (Mfg)
Philadelphia, PA
|
70.8 | — | — | — | 31 programs |
| 40 |
GenScript
Piscataway, NJ (US HQ); Nanjing, China (primary operations)
|
65.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 41 |
CT
CTMC
Houston, TX
|
63.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 42 |
RA
Recipharm Advanced Bio
Stockholm, Sweden (US operations: Watertown, MA; EU/global ATMP division of Recipharm AB)
|
63.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 43 |
HG
Hitachi Global Life Solutions (CGT)
Yokohama, Japan
|
63.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 44 |
SM
Sumitomo Chemical Advanced Medical
Tokyo, JP
|
63.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 45 |
EA
Esco Aster
Singapore, SG
|
63.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 46 |
MX
MaxCyte
Gaithersburg, MD
|
62.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 47 |
CL
Cellares
South San Francisco, CA
|
61.5 | — | — | Available | 0 programs |
| 48 |
MS
Made Scientific
Princeton, NJ
|
61.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 49 |
GF
GeneFab
Alameda, CA and South San Francisco
|
61.5 | — | — | Available | 0 programs |
| 50 |
Minaris (WuXi Advanced Therapies)
Philadelphia, PA / Yokohama, Japan
|
60.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 51 |
KC
Kincell Bio
Research Triangle Park, NC
|
60.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 52 |
AP
Applied StemCell
Milpitas, CA
|
60.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 53 |
CP
Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult
Stevenage, United Kingdom
|
59.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 54 |
C3
C3i Center
Houston, TX
|
59.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 55 |
EX
Excellos
La Rochelle, France
|
59.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 56 |
CZ
Cellex Cell Professionals
Cologne, Germany
|
59.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 57 |
AS
Artis BioSolutions
Lake Nona, FL
|
59.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 58 |
CTP
Cell Therapies Pty Ltd
Melbourne, Australia
|
59.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 59 |
SS
Singota Solutions
Bloomington, IN
|
59.0 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 60 |
PO
Poseida Therapeutics (CDMO)
San Diego, CA
|
58.7 | — | — | — | 6 programs |
| 61 |
TG
ThermoGenesis
Rancho Cordova, CA
|
57.8 | — | — | — | 1 programs |
| 62 |
CX
CellGenix
Freiburg, DE
|
56.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 63 |
GC
Green Cross Cell
Yongin, KR
|
56.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| 64 |
CH
CHA Medical & Bio Group
Seongnam, KR
|
56.5 | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
3P Biopharmaceuticals (now 3PBIOVIAN)
Pamplona-Noáin, Spain
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Roche / Genentech (Internal Manufacturing & CustomBiotech)
Basel, Switzerland
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Altruist Biologics
Suzhou, China
|
Profiled | — | — | Available | 0 programs |
| — |
Rose BioSolutions
Wilmington, MA
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Orphan Therapeutics Accelerator (OTXL)
Cambridge, MA
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Cellipont Bioservices
The Woodlands, TX
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Kemwell Biopharma
Bengaluru, India
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Kemwell Biopharma, Bangalore
Bengaluru, India
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
FUJIFILM Cellular Dynamics (FCDI)
Madison, WI
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Magellan Stem Cells
Sydney, Australia
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Landmark Bio
Watertown, MA
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Navigate BioPharma Services, Inc.
Carlsbad, CA
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Cellistic
Mont-Saint-Guibert, Belgium
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Fresenius Kabi
Bad Homburg, Germany
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
InGeneron, Inc.
Houston, TX
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
| — |
Sanofi (Genzyme / Sanofi Manufacturing)
Paris, France
|
Profiled | — | — | — | 0 programs |
What to evaluate in a Cell Therapy CDMO
Autologous vs allogeneic
Autologous needs per-patient scheduling, chain-of-identity, and short turnaround; allogeneic needs scalable batch processing and a master cell bank strategy. Pick a CDMO proven in your model.
Vector & raw materials
Most cell therapies need a viral vector. Confirm whether the CDMO makes vector in-house or coordinates an external supplier, and how that affects timelines.
Closed-system & cleanrooms
Closed, automated processing reduces contamination risk and labor. Ask about cleanroom grade, automation platforms, and parallel-suite capacity.
Cold chain & logistics
Cryopreservation and chain-of-custody are critical for living cells. Evaluate the CDMO's cold-chain and apheresis-to-infusion logistics.
Autologous vs allogeneic — which cell therapy CDMOs handle each?
Autologous and allogeneic cell therapy manufacturing are structurally different: autologous is per-patient batching with chain-of-identity constraints and tight vein-to-vein delivery windows; allogeneic runs larger batch sizes from master cell banks without patient-specific logistics. Most cell therapy CDMOs specialize in one paradigm and only some run both. The modality tags shown on each CDMO profile flag which paradigms a manufacturer supports. Sponsors weighing a CDMO should confirm not just paradigm coverage but the specific unit-of-manufacture — some CDMOs count individual patient batches as one program, others count campaign runs, which changes what "capacity" means.
Which cell therapy CDMOs have commercial approvals?
Commercial cell therapy manufacturing — supporting a marketed product like an approved CAR-T, TCR, or MSC therapy — is a much narrower field than clinical manufacturing. The commercial-scale cell therapy filter surfaces CDMOs with top-quartile Signal Score or broad ClinicalTrials.gov footprint. Sponsors moving a program from clinical to commercial should look for CDMOs whose FDA inspection record specifically covers cell therapy operations — GMP compliance across other modalities does not transfer automatically to cell therapy manufacturing.
How do vein-to-vein timelines vary across cell therapy CDMOs?
Vein-to-vein — the elapsed time from patient apheresis to infusion of manufactured product — is the operational metric that most defines an autologous cell therapy CDMO. Public disclosures are inconsistent, but the two-week target that commercial CAR-T programs operate against is a common floor. CDMO Signal does not publish per-site vein-to-vein numbers directly (published data is unreliable), but the FDA inspection classifications shown in the ranked table reflect batch reliability, which is the underlying process-control property that drives timeline consistency. Sponsors should ask CDMOs for their site-specific benchmarked turnaround as part of due diligence.
How CDMO Signal computes the cell therapy ranking
The cell therapy Signal Score is the platform's standard four-pillar composite. Quality Compliance (35%) leans on FDA inspection classifications (NAI, VAI, OAI), Warning Letter history, and EMA/MHRA GMP certificate density. Operations (25%) reflects ClinicalTrials.gov sponsor and program footprint — for cell therapy this pillar disproportionately captures signal, since clinical activity closely tracks real cell-manufacturing depth. Financial Stability (20%) draws on SEC filings and parent-company signals. Capacity Intelligence (20%) tracks monitored trade press for facility expansions. Full weightings at cdmosignal.com/methodology.
Cell Therapy CDMOs — Frequently Asked Questions
Who are the top Cell Therapy CDMOs?
By CDMO Signal's independent Signal Score, the top-ranked Cell Therapy CDMOs include Bristol Myers Squibb (CGT Mfg), City of Hope (T Cell Manufacturing), Merck KGaA / MilliporeSigma (CDMO). See the full ranked table above — scored on FDA, clinical, financial, and capacity data.
How many Cell Therapy CDMOs have FDA inspection records?
CDMO Signal tracks 18 Cell Therapy CDMOs with FDA inspection records and 138 EMA/MHRA GMP certificates across the group.
What should I look for in a cell therapy CDMO?
Match the CDMO to your model: autologous needs chain-of-identity and fast turnaround; allogeneic needs scalable batch processing. Confirm vector sourcing, closed-system processing, cold-chain logistics, and a clean FDA and EMA/MHRA record.
Do cell therapy CDMOs make their own viral vectors?
Some do in-house; others coordinate an external vector supplier. In-house vector can shorten timelines and simplify supply, but a strong external partner is common. Check each profile's modality coverage above.
Related modalities